Quoting Nathan Lynch (ntl@xxxxxxxxx): > On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 13:32 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote: > > From the technical point of view it *is* a big problem: there are > > very good reasons why we chose a certain design. > > > > If Natahan is suggesting in-kernel tree creation as a temporary thing > > to simplify the code for review - then, given that this patch handles > > a single process, doing so add lots of unnecessary code, all of which > > in the kernel. > > > > If this is the beginning of a permanent approach, then it is totally > > incompatible with what we have done so far, and severely restricts > > the kind of use--cases of the project, potentially making it too > > unattractive for many natural adaptors, like HPC users. Sorry, nack. > > It's not a stopgap measure to "ease review" or whatever; recreating the > task tree in-kernel is a fundamental - and simplifying - part of the I hadn't gotten to that part yet, so I'm on the fence. The API for starting a checkpoint, that I'm not on the fence on. -serge
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
